From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:31:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D10C37B405 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D47743E75 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oSNG-0004Rt-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:30:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:29:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > > application gives predictive results in the problem domain of > > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. > = > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > non-theistic worldview. I guess I have to ask "why ``again'', wasn't ``once'' enough?". Natural selection: The process by which individuals=92 inherited needs and abilities are more or less closely matched to resources available in their environment, giving those with greater "fitness" a better chance of survival and reproduction. Note that that failing to find God under every rock is not the same thing as "rejecting God". Early man saw God (or _a_ god) everywhere there was some phenomenon that they could not explain rationally. That we now know the cause of "thunder" is not a rejection of God, any more than knowing the cause of speciation. > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep > calling it selection? Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the operation of a fitness function. > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > evolutionary theory? Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. > "Selection" implies intentionality, To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those people to make this mistake. > something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to > explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". It's not. > If we use Occam's razor to shave off all the philosophical and > religious baggage from evolution, what is left except an assertion > that life spontaneously arose "by chance"? With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of course. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message